Scientists Achieve Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication For The First Time

originally posted by: SaturnFXScience Alert
The science is pretty mind boggling to me, but I think what its saying is they have achieved some groundwork for quantum communication and perhaps
even proved it can be done.

This is pretty big news

Theoretical physicists have long proposed that such a form of communication would be possible, but now, for the first time, researchers have been able
to experimentally achieve it - transferring a black and white bitmap image from one location to another without sending any physical
particles.

The idea is instant communication across vast distances without delay.
There has been speculation and debate on if this is even achievable...its the stuff that confused Einstein (and arguably invalidates the faster than
light law to a degree).
I will wait for the ATS brain trust to explain further if this is just nonsense and the article is wrong, or if indeed this is the milestone it seems
to be.

Reminds me of some years back when someone on ATS claiming to work for Nasa found out the rover on mars had a secret (already in use) quantum
communication aspect to it. he made some pretty interesting claims that sounded pretty convincing, but the argument was that such a thing wasn't
possible, therefore nonsense.

Alternatively, this isn't proving that at all but instead as stated only, that it would allow or communication between quantum sized objects without
any particles going to and from.
Would be a good method for nanomachines becoming smart and taking orders.

This is big news!

This means the wave function is real but non physical. You have the transmission of information from point A to B without a physical medium. Here's
one of the papers that talked about this before the experiments confirmed what was said:

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state
of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist
models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements,
and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the
concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured
wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of
a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension,
generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for
quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be
the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

originally posted by: neoholographic
This pretty much means we have to rethink a lot when it comes to science. We have to think of things in a non physical, non local way.

I still wont hazard a guess for the greater implications (My mind is filled with sci-fi garbage so anything I start contemplating is of course based
in just that and I become overexcited) but exciting times nonetheless when new findings come out that have us rethink our assumptions.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Sooner or later people are going to realize the word "Quantum" really just translates to...

..."We really don't have the slightest idea what the hell we're talking about, so we're going to completely obfuscate the issue and baffle you with
a bunch of BS, but please, keep funding our research grants because we gotta' eat somehow...and picking up a shovel is definitely NOT an
option!"

Quantum physics exists as a mechanism to attempt to prove Einstein wrong. Quantum physics is like Economics, or Statistics...you can make it anything
you want it to be. The only rules are...you're wrong, now prove me wrong.

The ancient scholars of antiquity were more right than they ever knew when they said "You can't prove a negative".

I hear what you're saying, and sometimes I have a tendency to drift in that direction myself, but the fact is that the science of statistics and
economics is sound; it's the application of said schools of thought in marketing and advertisement that produces the "you can make it anything you
want it to be" deal. As for quantum physics, the science is sound. It's about sub-atomic particles and the physics relating to them. Granted, the math
and science behind it is way above my paygrade, which is why it often causes the tendency to drift in the direction you mentioned, but it's sound none
the less, and I for one am curious to see what kind of strides the math whizzes make during my life time.

You would need to entangle N electrons and be able to arrange them in a linear series. So for 256 entangled, serialized electrons, the data that could
be transmitted would be 64 bits, and received 64 bits (each pair defining a bit) as well.

It is total control of the uncertainty principle.

You send 1 set of serialized, entangled electrons somewhere, perhaps to another planet with whatever sensors you want.

To transmit, you observe your first bit, which automatically makes it -spin or +spin, and corresponding entangled electron becomes it's opposite. the
code would be 1 for + and - for 0. You change the next paired bit to a + or - accordingly to make the 2 bit rule rule ++ =1 and -+ 0.

To receive, you observe the next 64 bits, knowing that they have already been defined from the mechanism controlling the remote set of serialized
entangled electrons.

The transmit and receive bits would be opposite, from the other sides definition.

You could even do them in groups of three to make the third bit a parity checker. You set that bit by a rule that sets the bit 0=odd or 1=even for the
2 data bits (electrons)

Simple in theory, but as yet we have yet to figure out how.

Imagine that some day we may be able to do this. Almost zero latency with a robot on Mars... or just about anywhere.

Not to distract from the OP, but Economics is far from being considered accepted "science"! And to illustrate this point, what is the first thing you
start learning about in Economics (right after supply and demand)? Statistics, right? Statistics being used to determine probabilities of things
happening. It's not about hard "proofs" to statistical theorems, because nobody can prove anything in Economics. The problem is not in the
mathematical calculation of the statistics themselves, but rather in initial data used to input into these calculations. Skew that initial input
data, and get skewed (desired) results on the output.

Here's a simple test to 'prove' what I am suggesting... Go ask any Economist to explain why "Derivatives" are allowed to legally exist in any
economic system. If you ask 5 Economists, you'll get 5 wildly different answers. Ask 100, and you'll get 100 different answers. The bottom line is,
nobody truly understands what they do or how they work from a macro-economics perspective. They're just a convenient way to make bad things look like
good things and give people a false sense of security / hope...kinda' like quantum physics.

originally posted by: neoholographic
This pretty much means we have to rethink a lot when it comes to science. We have to think of things in a non physical, non local way.

I still wont hazard a guess for the greater implications (My mind is filled with sci-fi garbage so anything I start contemplating is of course based
in just that and I become overexcited) but exciting times nonetheless when new findings come out that have us rethink our assumptions.

Exactly,

Science has to rethink materialist assumptions because of things like non locality, entanglement and recent experiments like this one.

This really started with Einstein and the advent of quantum mechanics.

Einstein was a materialist who thought there needed to be a physical explanation for everything. This is why he came up with the EPR Paradox because
he hated the idea of entanglement and he hated quantum randomness hence the famous quote,"God doesn't play dice."

Sadly for materialist, quantum mechanics has destroyed the notion of materialism because every action doesn't have to have a physical cause. We see
this in this recent experiment where information went from point A to point B without a physical medium.

Quantum physics: Death by experiment for local realism

A fundamental scientific assumption called local realism conflicts with certain predictions of quantum mechanics. Those predictions have now been
verified, with none of the loopholes that have compromised earlier tests.

Albert Einstein once said that “God does not play dice with the universe,” implying that quantum particles are not strictly randomized.
According to his principle of local realism, Einstein believed that each particle needs to have a pre-existing value to be measurable. In other words,
if there is no value before a measurement is made, a measurement can’t be made.

For those studying in the field of quantum mechanics, however, local realism just doesn’t pan out, and scientists have been trying to prove it ever
since John Stewart Bell first created ‘Bell’s Theorem,’ which states that “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all
of the predictions of quantum mechanics.” Basically, if an experiment could be found to violate that theory, then it would simultaneously refute
both Bell and Einstein and shed further light on the way that randomness contributes to quantum mechanics.

And believe it or not, scientists have done an experiment that violated Bell’s theory. What’s more, it used input from over 100,000 humans,
showing that a little bit of human randomness was exactly what was needed to break through the barrier that is local realism.

Another very interesting article talks about how quantum randomness explains the increase of information in the universe.

Look around you – at the sun in the sky, a tree swaying in the breeze, a woman walking her dog down your street. You may think all these things
have a cause. Einstein did. He hated the idea of quantum randomness underlying everything, which is why he declared, “God does not play dice”.

Tough, says Stephen Hsu of the University of Oregon in Eugene. “Not only does God play dice with the universe but, if he did not, the complex
universe we see around us would not exist at all. We owe everything to randomness.”

Hsu came to his startling conclusion by comparing the amount of information in today’s universe with that in the first moments of creation.
According to standard cosmology, the universe grew enormously in the first split second of its existence, blowing up from a tiny patch of vacuum.
“Because the patch was exponentially smaller than today’s universe, it contained exponentially less information,” says Hsu.

He has calculated the size of the universe before inflation and before the big bang, and estimated the maximum amount of information it could
contain. That space could hold a mere 10^6 bits of information, he says, whereas today’s universe requires at least 10^86 bits. “You have to ask
yourself: where did all the information today come from?” he says.

This is simply saying that the quantum randomness associated with the probabilities of a quantum object is real information.

I have all the stuff in my bedroom like my bed and TV but there's only so many ways I can arrange the stuff in my room in this space. If I knock out a
wall and now my room is in a wider space that includes the living room, information increases but it's just potential because now I have a much bigger
space to arrange the stuff in my room that was previously in a much smaller space.

This is just potential and it doesn't change unless I physically move the classical objects in my room because the natural state of those classical
objects is at rest.

The exact oppositite occurs with subatomic particles. The natural state of these particles is to be in an undefined position until measured and this
isn't potential this is real quantum information.

So if I have a particle in my sealed room, the wave function of the particle would be spread out throughout my room. This is actual quantum
information. If I knock out my wall, then the wave function of the particle spreads out into a much wider space and this increases information.

So, quantum randomness is very real despite Einstein's consternation.

It's also why some Scientist are saying every black hole leads to a parallel universe. This is because a quantum object can never reach a singularity
or a singular positition. It can only be reduced to an 0 and 1.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Sooner or later people are going to realize the word "Quantum" really just translates to...

..."We really don't have the slightest idea what the hell we're talking about, so we're going to completely obfuscate the issue and baffle you with
a bunch of BS, but please, keep funding our research grants because we gotta' eat somehow...and picking up a shovel is definitely NOT an
option!"

Quantum physics exists as a mechanism to attempt to prove Einstein wrong. Quantum physics is like Economics, or Statistics...you can make it anything
you want it to be. The only rules are...you're wrong, now prove me wrong.

The ancient scholars of antiquity were more right than they ever knew when they said "You can't prove a negative".

Quantum mechanics
Quantum communication
Quantum underwater basket weaving
Quantum (insert subject of choice where you want to prove someone wrong and make a name for yourself).

Quantum physics - Rinse and repeat.

You don't have to make word for it but the status of Quantum Mechanics is not as you have described...

Adding the word "modern" to the title of the question completely changes it. In modern computers you need semiconductors, and the whole theory of
solid state physics (band structures, doping, etc.) is based on a foundation of quantum mechanics - since electrons in semiconducting solids behave in
a manner that is more wave-like than particle-like, with each electron occupying its own distinct state. Making a semiconductor work well requires in
depth understanding of these things.

The reason is very simple. Computers depend on electronics. Even the first diodes and triodes that the first bulky computers were made up of depend on
the quantum mechanical nature of matter. The present ones with the chip technology are directly dependent on energy levels and bands of conduction
etc. in the electronics used.

A long read. But here's a NASA engineer that claims to have found a Quantum communication device on the mars rover.

Interesting story.

Yeah, thats the guy who came on here sometime back. I found him fascinating to read and open to him being honest. He wasn't saying he was an ascended
being or alien or anything..just that he found something weird on the rover. He more or less got chased off from here, and thats a pity, but
yeah...makes you wonder I guess.

A long read. But here's a NASA engineer that claims to have found a Quantum communication device on the mars rover.

Interesting story.

Yeah, thats the guy who came on here sometime back. I found him fascinating to read and open to him being honest. He wasn't saying he was an ascended
being or alien or anything..just that he found something weird on the rover. He more or less got chased off from here, and thats a pity, but
yeah...makes you wonder I guess.

That happens a lot. The legitimate posters are quickly shown the door or grossly abused.

It could very well be pi or golden ratio at the end then multiple or divide it-self with maybe some type of crystal new particle that measures any
given extra room to re-compute? Wow my head hurts....lol this is too much

Could it all this super math stuff be the ability that maybe we can finally track or....pin-pinpoint ether?

I think Einstein was on the wrong path trying to find god with math. In the end of his life he tried to be a vegetarian, I do not think he got along
well with the plant defense chemistry of plants. And the funny thing is, I do not think he knew that this plant chemistry could make a person
delusional.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.